Thanks, Anthony, for posting my small part in this rather interesting episode. I appreciate the link to my little blog, too! The Orange County Water Summit (at the Disneyland Grand Californian Hotel) was actually quite interesting, as water is also a favorite topic with me.

Regarding the question I asked, I tried to stay as close to the two short paragraphs as stated in the body of this post. I wrote it out on a piece of paper, and read it when my turn to ask arrived.

Here is what I asked to the best of my recollection (this can be confirmed if and when the video/audio is available):

“My question is for Dr. Mann. Dr Mann, in your 1998 paper co-authored with Dr. Briffa and Dr. Hughes, you showed a warming since 1960. The same hockey-stick graph was shown earlier today. However, you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 but instead to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.

How do you respond to the charge that the tree ring data was cherry picked to show a desired result, and that Mr. Steve McIntyre has falsified your work by showing that the premise of a hockey stick falls apart when all of the data is used?”

Mann then proceeded to state that my question had false information, since it was Bradley, not Briffa as co-author. OK, we can grant him that small point. He went on to say, as I emailed Anthony and shown in the post above, the decline is well-known but not understood; research is on-going; then dodged the question and called it “specious;” then made a plug for his book (about the third or fourth time, I believe) saying the warming is real and he addressed all this in his book.

There were a couple of other questions from skeptics, one related to Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT. Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.

He stated that we don’t believe in Evolution theory simply because Darwin proposed it, but because it has withstood the test of time and many scientists’ verification for more than 100 years (I think I have his answer pretty close to verbatim).

Now, about the Nobel-prize: Mann stated at the outset that he did not win the Nobel prize, and explained that he merely shared in it as a contributing scientist to the IPCC, which organization did win.

I actually enjoyed Mann’s presentation, because it reminded me a bit of being in a final exam in university, where the goal is to spot the errors, omissions, and misleading statements. Mann’s presentation was full of such things. For example, he showed a graph of Arctic ice decline, during a segment on the many threads of evidence that proves the globe is warming. His graph stopped at 2007, at the lowest point in the record. He did not explain that the graph was for summer minimum extent, which I think it must have been. That cherry-picked endpoint made the graph take a dramatic downward trend, and was most impressive. And, very misleading because the minimum extent has stabilized and slightly increased since then.

Another was the latest 12 months in the USA being the hottest 12 month period on record. No mention of Europe or Asia, though, which just ended brutally cold and bitter winter.. Again, misleading.

Another was the intense rainfall on the East coast from hurricane (or was it tropical storm?) Irene. Mann stated that the intense rain was due in part to global warming, since the Atlantic Ocean was unusually warm when Irene passed over it and collected water vapor to dump on shore as rain. That raised my suspicions, since I have never heard that before; perhaps it is true; I just don’t know.

He also presented a graph to show how superbly well the climate models match the actual temperature trend since Dr. Hansen made his speech to congress in 1988. What he didn’t mention, though, is that the “actual data” has been severely manipulated and approximately half the warming is due to adjustments. His “actual data” also either 1) stopped before the recent leveling off, or 2) showed a warming for the past 12 or so years; I could not read the time-scale on the chart from my seat near the back of the room. Either way, that was (again) very misleading.

Finally, he showed the (is it obligatory?) photo of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe. He spent some time talking about his little daughter and how he wants to leave a good world for her. The polar bear on the ice floe was displayed during this portion of the speech. Again, extremely misleading since polar bears have plenty of ice on which to sit, and their numbers are growing, not declining.

Mann tied in global warming to the water topic, saying the models forecast a much more arid climate for the US southwest. This, of course, will make the existing water shortages in California and other Western states much, much worse. He then confused us all by saying it was not clear if more La Niñas or El Niños would prevail. He noted that global warming creates warmer oceans, which would mean more El Niños, which almost always bring more rain, not less. I must note, here, that the existence of multiple models, as Mann mentioned, is a clear indication that the science is not settled. My words not, not Mann’s, but if a person on a journey had 12 different maps, and took the average of the 12 routes and directions to his destination, one must wonder if he would reach the destination at all.

Thank you to all the commenters above for the kind words on my speech to the AIChE. That speech was a lot of fun, and it was rewarding to have a few college students from California State – Long Beach in attendance. They seemed to not be aware of any of the points I made, and it came as somewhat of a surprise to them.

Just a few words about the television interviews, that Dr. Mann declined and I accepted. I was asked by a very nice young lady to step out of the convention hall into the hallway, where she confirmed that I had asked the question of Dr. Mann. She then said that was an excellent question, and a news reporter from PBS would like to interview me, would I consent to the interview? I said I would be happy to do so. I met the reporter, David, and I apologize to him that I didn’t catch the last name. He’s a very interesting and quite nice fellow. We went through the preliminaries, my name, occupation, and he asked my affiliation. I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone. He seemed more relieved when he asked what kind of law I practice and I told him Climate Change law.

David (Nazar) then decided he wanted to interview Dr. Mann first, then me second to get the skeptic view. He asked me to step away and return in 10 minutes. I went back to the presentation and took my seat. I could see Dr. Mann across the room, and he went out for a few minutes then returned. So, I went back out to find David and his camera-man. At that point, David told me that he did not interview Dr. Mann after all. He said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Dr. Mann refused the interview and got angry. I believe David told him that he was to be interviewed first, then me, although I was not identified by name but by the question I asked. It could be that Dr. Mann did not want to be interviewed then have a skeptic follow him, with no opportunity to rebut. This is just speculation on my part, though.

In the actual interview, David asked me a few of the questions he had intended to ask Dr. Mann, such as what is global warming, and what role does mankind play in this? I can’t recall my exact words, which should be available soon if and when the video is aired and placed on-line, but here is what I believe I said.

I said that global warming is the fact that the world has warmed somewhat, perhaps one degree F, in the past 150 years. The cause of the warming is mostly natural forces, since mankind has not placed much CO2 in the air until the past four decades.

He asked other questions, such as what is the skeptic view. I told him that I don’t believe that CO2 causes much, if any warming, and that the more important issue is global cooling due to the weak solar cycle.

David ended by asking why I thought Dr. Mann was so rude in his refusal to be interviewed, and I replied that I don’t know, but I do know he is party to some litigation. It is possible his attorneys have advised him not to do interviews. This is a pure guess on my part.

UPDATE: here’s a photo from Mr. Sowell at the event. Dr. Mann at the right under the “R”.

Ha…. Mann finally admitted to a group that he is not a Nobel Prize winner… Wonder if my pushing his hosts at a conference a few weeks ago, and they corrected this in their promotions after some debate. I suspect Mann has a new sleazy approach – to have the hosts introduce him as a NP winner, then he can deny it and explain and show how honest he is.

The other logical fault in the debate is…… If the science is indeed settled, then why do we need all these climate scientists? If it’s true, then (a) the models will be true and future measurement is unnecessary and (b) the scientists can be fired and the money spent on correction.

And a big thanks to you Anthony for keeping the “kiss cam” on Dr. Mann.

(For those who don’t attend live sporting events, the “kiss cam” zooms in on a couple kissing or perhaps an individual from among all of the thousands in attendance and shows them on the giant screen monitors around the arena. If you’re lucky, you aren’t picking or powdering your nose at the time. You can’t hide from the “kiss cam.”)

As alarmist scientists have explained, they have a choice between being an honest scientist and a dishonest advocate. Mann obviously has made many choices to be the dishonest advocate, but the worst has to be this polar bear ‘stuck’ on the ice floe schtick. That is simply indefensible for anyone even pretending to be a scientist.

Mann’s attempts to deceive were amateurish at best. He and his fellow “consensus scientists” have grown accustomed to manipulating gullible, uninformed audiences who are receptive to the AGW fable. The charlatanism is always on full display; they don’t even try to disguise their lies and half-truths.

“Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.”
———————————————————————————
I’m tired of this fallacy, and I’m tired of being labeled a creationist. By definition, the consensus must be wrong just prior to a new discovery like, say, the heliocentric model. Modern climate models resemble nothing so much as the ancient Greek’s (incorrect) epicycles. True science does not rely on polls, it relies on hypothesis, test, and evidence and can be falsified unlike the everything-can-be-explained-by CAGW meme.

I forget the exact words of Feynman but formation of a new theory goes something like this:
First you guess at it, then you compute its effects, then you compare those computations to observations. If the computations don’t match the observations, the theory is wrong. Last time I checked in everywhere but Mann’s world the models don’t match the observations.

I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.

He may not be much of a scientist but his infowar skills are impressive. I love the way he dragged Polar Bears into the talk. A species that’s gone from 5,000 in the 50s to about 25,000 today. You couldn’t make it up, but he’s no problem doing that …

The problem is that they say they observations (with necessary corrections) match the models.
They just don’t say which model at this time or why old data is adjusted down while new data is adjusted up.
But they say it matches and they are the scientists and they have consensus.
Check, your move!

I agree with Pamela @ 8:44. There is no need to suggest or try to explain the “most likely cause” (or causes). Earth’s climate zones have changed in the past and continue to do so – we know this from historical reports and physical evidence. Natural processes have done the changing. I don’t believe this has been falsified. Until you can explain how the mechanisms work, you are not justified in suggesting a single cause. It might be appropriate to have a list of, say 5, things (one being ‘unknown’) and ranked to your personal preference as long as you start with the statement “I don’t know.”

Here was Michael Mann, a leading icon of the alarmists’ AGW movement with access to the entirety of climate “science” that supports the consensus and all he brings to share are the same things any random nitwit peddles on the internet? Really? That’s it? And he can’t face a simple interview?

With both the AGW hierarchy and their rank and file followers all left with no more than worthless models, cherry picked graphs, a polar bear pic, foolish attributions and confusing contradictions perhaps leading skeptics should consider some sort of uniform declaration of success.

It may not get any better if Mann et al cling to their silliness in perpetuity so perhaps an abject dismissal of the alarmists’ foolish campaign may prove to be the best way forward.

That’s not to say their continued bantor should go unchallenged but are there no means to
adequately brand it for what it is?

I mean if his Majesty Michael Mann is in effect presenting himself as no more than a pompous imbecile shouldn’t the response be mostly reintegrative shaming vs attempted debate?

I would especially like to see our most elder skeptics enjoy victory before moving on to the hereafter.
So can we pick up the pace a bit to help them out?

“Finally, he showed the (is it obligatory?) photo of a polar bear on a tiny ice floe. He spent some time talking about his little daughter and how he wants to leave a good world for her. The polar bear on the ice floe was displayed during this portion of the speech. Again, extremely misleading since polar bears have plenty of ice on which to sit, and their numbers are growing, not declining.”

…The more things change the more they stay the same. Here is a map of Iceland from 1587, notice the little polar bears on the broken up ice in north east Iceland, some of them are really struggling to get on the ice. Over four hundred years ago. Oh the humanity!

Roger,
So proud of the way you try to keep people accountable before the masses and the rest of us informed. Who knew all the those years ago life would turn out to be so interesting and you would be right there in the middle of it. Thanks!
Suzanne

I find it amusing that Mann responds to skepticism re CAGW with the platitude there is a ‘consensus’. Definition: 1. broad unanimity: general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group.
If there were consensus, there would be no skepticism.

Tsk Tsk;
Last time I checked in everywhere but Mann’s world the models don’t match the observations.>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
That’s because we’re living in the MMP (Medieval Mann Period) where any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from science.
>>>>>>>>>>

Can anyone justify displaying a Arctic ice graph that stops at 2007?
That’s missing the latest 5 years of data, or roughly 15% of the total data since 1979?
It can’t be lack of time, I’ve downloaded the ice data and plotted a graph in a few minutes.

IMHO, it seems to be strong evidence of manipulating the message, doesn’t seem like science anymore.

Yes, before the camera rolled, David Nazar and I talked a bit and I told him that Watts Up With That.com is an excellent source of climate science information. Who knows if he wrote it down or remembered it later. He seemed more concerned that I had no organization behind me. An army of independent skeptics seems a novel concept.

I am astounded at the lack of knowledge on east coast hurricanes by these people. Ever hear of Connie and Diane (1955) Gloria. 1938 in New England, AGNES IN DR MANNS BACK YARD. OR ELOISE. What gives with you folks. You should know the atlantic is in the warm AMO. If anything Irene UNDERACHIEVED but just what do you think is going to happen when you have a 955 mb hurricane running the east coast. IF you folks on the AGW side don’t know, then please please I beg of you, study the history of these storms. How the McKibbens, Cullens, and now this, Phds, make these statements like you do means you can not have looked. It has to be that simple. Have you ever researched what happened on the east coast with hurricanes in the last warm AMO?

So What would you say if you had 2 billion trees knocked down in a hurricane in New England now like 1938 with a wind gust to 186 at Blue Hill and 13 feet of water into Providence, Carol almost doing the same in 1954, with Edna 10 days later on Cape Cod. Or a Donna that gave hurricane force winds to every state on the east coast like 1960. Or 1944 with anemometers blowing away on the Jersey shore as a 20 foot storm surge took out boardwalks, from a storm that had a sustained wind of 134 with a gust to 156 OUT OF THE THE NORTH at Cape Henry.

What would these merchants of fear do if we had 1954 again? Carol, Edna, Hazel, with 1955 and the floods of Connie and Diane. 5 disasters. All of equal or greater magnitude than Irene in 2 years AND GUESS WHAT.. DURING THE WARM AMO! My belief is this cycle has vastly underachieved on the east coast with the hurricanes!!!

Look what happened in 1971 to NJ IN TROPICAL STORM DORIA for goodness sakes, in a cold amo as were AGNES AND ELOISE, major floods.

I can name a dozen storms but it bores readers here that actually have researched these things. I can’t decide what is worse.. either you actually don’t bother looking and make statements like the nonsense we hear about Irene, or you know the history and simply ignore it, or worse, are being deceptive about it.

And while we are it, with the arctic sea ice. Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of THREE submarines submerging in LARGELY OPEN WATER AT THE NORTH POLE. Another deception being pushed down peoples throats.

1958
1962
TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO YESTERDAY!

Its one twisted fact after another. Hurricanes, actual global ice, actual winter this year in northern hemisphere. PDO denial.

I would love to get all these people in a test and actually ask them to show what they know about the storms and weather events of the past. To them its like it never occurred.

Again supporting my theory on this being a massive case of Dunning Krueger effect; confidence because of ignorance of anything that can challenge your position.

“My question is for Dr. Mann. Dr Mann, in your 1998 paper co-authored with Dr. Briffa [should be Bradley] and Dr. Hughes, you showed a warming since 1960. The same hockey-stick graph was shown earlier today. However, you chose to not use tree core data after 1960 but instead to splice on the instrumental temperature record to in effect “hide the decline” of the trees after 1960.

While the MBH98/99 HS has lots of problems, it in fact runs up to 1980. The truncation at 1960 pertains to Briffa’s MXD (maximum density) series, which was not used in the HS, and so is irrelevant to Mann’s HS itself. MBH98-99 apparently did substitute instrumental data after 1980 to compute its smoothed version of the HS up to 1980 (“Mike’s Nature Trick”), but in the MBH papers the effect of that was fairly subtle. It was Jones’ later use of the same trick in the WMO graph that gave a completely misleading impression.

So in fact Mann was correct to say that your question contained false information, since you were accusing him of someone else’s deception rather than his own.

(In a 2003 article in Eos, which I believe was co-authored by Mann, the Briffa MXD series is truncated not just at 1960, but at 1940, so that Mann does shares responsibility for that truncation. See discussion a while back on CA)

(MBH99 is also tainted by the “Mannkovitch Bodge” before 1400, but that’s another story.)

The one statement that jumped out at me was the one about science being about consensus. Plate techtonics and continental drift is the subject that is usually cited in this argument but there is also the one about bats. The biologist that worked out that bats use ultrasound to hunt and find their way around started out as a minority of one. The consensus was that he was mistaken.

Our sun provides 98+% of the energy that heats our world. Without it, our planet would begin to freeze in about 9 minutes. Temperatures would drop very quickly.

Since our sun demonstrates various cycles: 11, 22, 100, 1,000 etc, and our climate varies in similar (though not exactly the same) cycles’, it is highly probable that our sun is the root cause (along with the Earth’s orbital dynamics) of 90+% of our climate. Many recent peer reviewed papers are demonstrating these cause-effect relationships over 100’s & 1,000’s of years. Sure is a much higher probability than CO2 concentrations.

I’m not forgetting about the complex nature of our climate. Thermal and fluid dynamics of the oceans and atmosphere introduce perturbations, natural cycles and time lags into Earth’s response to solar variability.

Bill, your comment is without substance and your review of said research was not done with a very critical eye. The mechanism behind CO2 forms a much stronger case than the empty shell of solar/temperature wriggle matching. However, AGWers fail to nullify intrinsic natural variability. Both sides of the CO2/solar debate make separate but equally major failures.

And of course the Sun heats the planet directly. Whenever solar enthusiasts start their agrument with that tired verse, I cringe.

Joe,
I was there during Hazel. Big blow lots of rain. Living on Topsail Island on the N.C Coast.
Dad got his release from active duty 2 weeks early. We got out just ahead of the biggest blow and did not go back.

“I told him I’m in solo practice and was here on my own, not representing any organization. That seemed to perplex him, and I stated that I am just one of many thousands of climate skeptics. Some others wanted to attend today but could not for various reasons, so I came alone.”
I LOVE this! Thanks Roger Sowell! After days of heavy lifting on who’s manipulating water in Colorado, I needed that LAUGH OUT LOUD! :-)

“150 years of warming” ? NOT.
To accept that claim as established science one must first accept Mann ‘s proposition that both the MWP and LIA were merely regional events. But that flies in the face of 1000+ peer-reviewed studies (all accessible via links provided by co2science.org) . There is no question but what both of these periods were global. Mann:s study was merely one of numerous studies. Those numerous studies in conflict with Mann’s claim spanned the globe and also made use of a variety of temperature proxies. Not only that, hundreds of these studies were done AFTER Mann’s “conclusions” had gone public. The only debatable point gas has to do with temperature amplitude of both periods. But even in that case a large majority of the subset (between 100 and 200) of those studies included quantitative or qualitative temperature data which indicated that temperature amplitudes were as broad as originally shown the original UN documents. (Mann has stated clearly, on more than one occasion, that his hockey stick graph is not important ! He is right.)

With Mann’s bogus study out of the way it is clear that – by the very definition of warming – our current warming began at the bottom (not the “end”, which is an arbitrary and irrelevant date) of the LIA. That date (claimed by Dr. David Evans, Australian climatologist, perhaps among others) would be about 1680, which is some 200 years BEFORE co2 began rising and, of course, also long before the industrial revolution. So we must conclude that there has been some 200 years of natural warming BEFORE there is any possibility that industrial activity could have had any impact (land use, such as the UHI effect do not even impact the surrounding rural area, so have no relevance with regard to global temperatures.) The so-called studies confirming Mann’s study were all guilty of using the same data as Mann – hardly confirmation of anything except, perhaps, Mann’s arithmetic.. It appears that the “consensus” (a term used very frequently by the warmist/alarmists) argument has not been operative in this particular case

The warmists themselves seem to now be claiming that AGW actually only began to rear its head since the 1970s. (That would seem to indicate that the first 50 to 100 ppmv increase in co2 had no effect on temperature.) Of course, from the 40s to the 70s was a known cooling period. Then there was global warming from about 1975 to 1998, but since 1998 there’s been a flat global temperature – as co2 continues its steady increase. Clearly none of the models (except perhaps those recently “tweaked”) have projected such an outcome. (and given the distinction between the terms “projection” and “prediction”, what’s that worth?) In any event we’re not talking about much evidence of warming, let alone whether it’s anthropogenic.

The warmist claims of minor impact of the MWP and the LIA, and when the current warming began have been thoroughly debunked, and that seems obvious even without taking into consideration at least one earlier email claim that they had to “get rid” of the MWP.

Pamela Gray is correct with her advice to skeptics to avoid choosing a “most probably cause”. Having to pick a most probably cause a trap. It diverts the focus from the weaknesses in the GW argument to potential weaknesses in yours.

A CAGW skeptic need only articulate why they are skeptical about the IPCC party line:
that the global climate has been warming primarily by man’s use of fossil fuels;
that the instrument record is reliable and not contaminated by UHI and analysis adjustments.
that CO2 IS the primary cause,
that CO2 doubling will cause several degrees of global warming,
that that global warming is so bad that it will cause catastrophic climate change,
that warming will not instead be a good thing or at least neutral.
that government actions CAN stop it all, much less should.
that government actions to control CO2 will not be a cure being than the disease.

The burden of proof is not on the skeptic. It never is.
It is the IPCC and those who wish to obtain the power and money to control CO2 who have the burden to make their case. They are the ones who must prove the strength of their chain of weak links. A skeptic must only point out the flaws in one or more of the links.

Now it helps if the skeptic is armed with several alternatives explanations to the alleged observations.
Adjustments to the temperature record stinks like a smoke-filled room.
UHI component of the temperature record is still underestimated.
Other causes of some of the Warming could be changes in Solar energy , Cosmic Ray Flux dependent cloud formation, Ocean Cycles, even our own Clean Air Regulations in addition to increases in CO2.
Geology shows us that the world has been warmer and cooler in the past without catastrophe. Typically it’s been a lot warmer than today. If history is any judge, I would prefer the climate to be two degrees warmer than two degrees colder. If warmer, we’ll adjust. If colder, crops fail and we go hungry. Compare death rates as a function of the outside temperature.
Stop and evaluate the anticipated results of proposed government actions and regulations to control CO2 and see how utterly impotent they are to controlling the problem as they state it.

If after all this you are still not a skeptic, then the only other advice I can offer you is:
“This is Government we are talking about — Follow the money.”

I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.

——————————————————————

Pam,

I must heartily disagree with this.. Does not water require HEAT to change and move? Without our sun and its active roll we would not be here..The sun is the source of our heat and the chemical reactions in our atmosphere…

Well argued, Joe. Thank you very much for really putting Mann in his place on that issue.

I notice that Mann’s anger in this incident seems to stem from the fact that Mann’s arguments have become so indefensible that even the People’s Bolshevik System is no longer willing to extend the customary kid-glove treatment to his side of the debate.

Dear oh dear Pamela… you cannot show a tight correlation of planetary temperature and CO2 concentration over time, except in extreme values of CO2. To add to that, it IS proven that most of that CO2 during warm times has been belched up from the oceans some 800 years AFTER the heating as the warmer fuid can hold less dissolved gas. During the glacial periods the cold oceans absorb large amounts of CO2 to be upchucked later when the climate has warmed. There IS tight correlation of a combination of the ENSO, the ADO, and other major oceanic cycles coupled with solar cycles.

If your argument is that the sun does NOT do it all, then we agree. But if you are trying to toss out solar variability as moot, then we are at odds with the data – the unmolested data.

The argument against global warming mitigation should be that it’s a dangerous gamble. If the effect of CO2 does turn out to be minor, and temperature changes are cyclical or unpredictable, global temperatures could cool even as CO2 increases, just as we’ve bet everything on warming. The result could be economic depression or even massive starvation. How confident are you about the “consensus”, mr. journalist?

In regards to Mann not being interviewed and past reporting (cough) on AGW… The hypocriticalness of media on AGW is damming of them.

The media continues to ask probing and grilling questions of AGW skeptics (the media declared non-experts and non-scientists); while continuing to give the AGW promoters (supposed experts and scientists) soft ball questions and soap boxes to pitch AGW from. This is coupled with media’s ongoing proclamations in the expertise and knowledge of proponents of AGW, and media’s decrees of science and fact backing AGW as being real.

With the media’s stance in reporting on AGW, would it not stand to reason that proponents of AGW (Mann, Jones, Gore, Hansen, et.al); be the most capable in the Co2 / climate debate of defending their position? Shouldn’t the media be asking them the hard ball questions? Shouldn’t the “fair playing” media being going easiest on those supposedly least capable of defending themselves (aka the skeptics)?

The fact the media continues giving proponents of AGW EZ questions from lofted platforms; shows the media is colluding with AGW promoters to perpetuate a scam. The media knows AGW is B.S.

AGW has nothing to do with science, facts, climate change, or supposed man induced warming. AGW is politics on a global scale. AGW is about redistribution of power, control, and wealth throughout the world.

“I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.”

Do we actually need a proven, causal mechanism before it is prudent to act? We can look to the ancient past, when humans had no clue why the sun rose in the East and set in the West. They had no clue why it became cold each winter, but was warm enough to grow crops each summer. They (we believe, at least I believe) figured out the correlation, though. Warm summer equals “plant the crops, and food will grow.” Would it sound silly, to be in a village council meeting thousands of years ago, and argue that we should not plant crops in the Spring because there was no causal mechanism to guarantee the warm summer would follow?

In my recent speech to the chemical engineers in Southern California, I made the point that we have excellent correlations over hundreds of years that show weak sunspot cycles produce global cooling. In fact (I did not emphasize this, though), we have evidence that very weak or non-existent sunspot cycles produce extreme cold. The opposite is also true: strong sunspot cycles produce warming, while modest sunspot cycles produce and intermediate temperature.. It is apparent, at least to me, that the late 20th century warming could be attributed to the combined warm ocean cycles with strong sunspot cycles – with no need for CO2 to be considered. The engineers in my audience, a very skeptical bunch, tried to refute the line of evidence before them. This is what engineers do (not limited to engineers, however, as many others also do this.) I also have tried my best to refute this. I stated in my speech that I could be wrong, and indeed, I hope I am wrong. Catastrophic global cooling is not something to take lightly.

But, the fact remains that, once again, we have a cold Pacific Ocean, and a weak sunspot cycle at this time. Experts are saying that this sunspot cycle will be the weakest in many decades. That is an appeal to authority, I realize. However, as a good skeptic, I checked their claim and found it to be true. If, as predicted, the current sunspot cycle peaks at approximately 60, that will indeed make it the weakest since approximately 1800. (see figures 20 and 21 at http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/warmists-are-wrong-cooling-is-coming.html).

Therefore, we have (as I presently see it), a cooling globe, a cold Pacific Ocean, a weaker than normal sunspot cycle, yet CO2 continues to increase by approximately 2 or 3 percent each year. Something, clearly, has stopped the warming, and started the cooling. Very few things can account for this: perhaps the CO2 has disappeared? No. Perhaps large volcanoes have erupted, placing reflecting aerosols in the atmosphere? No, we would have noticed this. Perhaps the sun’s total irradiance has decreased dramatically? No, we have ways to measure this and that did not happen. Perhaps all or most of the polar ice melted, which cooled the oceans, and that cooled the land? No, we certainly would have noticed this also. Have the polar ice, or land-based glaciers, grown dramatically so that more of the sun’s energy is reflected away? No, although that would cause a cooling. Is there too much soot from coal-burning, or other industrial air pollutants that also increase albedo? Possibly, although that seems remote. Then, what is left?

What can explain the inflection point in the global temperature curve from approximately 2000 until now?

I maintain that now is an excellent time to re-frame the debate, and focus our considerable abilities and energies (as a whole) to answering that question. If it indeed turns out that a weak sunspot cycle and simultaneous cold ocean cycle produces catastrophic cold, we are going to look rather silly in about 10 or 20 years time. Our children, when grown, will figure this out and ask, Why didn’t the scientists make the connection between sunspot cycles and cold? They had ample evidence from the past. Why didn’t someone sound the alarm, and take prudent steps to try to prepare for the bitter and prolonged cold?

No, I believe ancient man went about their agricultural activities right on schedule, each Spring. When the ground was warm enough, they plowed or stuck seeds in the earth. We even have the Stonehenge as a (possible) example, with the stones aligned so the Spring Equinox could be known to the exact day. They didn’t need a proven causal mechanism to act.

I’m not so sure Mann believes in his research anymore. He’s no fool. He’s been exposed for mathematical malpractice and surely he must understand why. It’s not necessary for him to believe in his research to continue on the warmist path (warpath?), which is obviously lucrative (no more “grant-grubbing”). It’s more lucrative than the alternative, which is to admit he’s wrong and that they simply don’t have a clue as to what the climate will be like in 50 or 100 years. He’s a figurehead, a movement celebrity. That provides income and notoriety, which is apparently what he’s been after since the beginning.

I’m guessing he’s a lukewarmer now but knows that the extent to which mankind is driving the warming can’t be quantified with any degree of certainty.

It’s like the conspiracy theorist who writes a book with all assuredness that his theory is absolutely true or at minimum plausible and that his book proves it. Even when alternative theories containing persuasive contradictory evidence appear, he feels compelled to defend his original position because now you have CONTROVERSY and opposing points of view, which attracts news media attention. Then you get to write a second book knocking your critics and providing new and/or updated information.

Or a better analogy might be the pastor whose faith is succumbing to agnosticism yet who continues to preach and tend to his congregation.

I tried to copy/paste comments but my PC is acting goofy ( perhaps because this post is about DisneyLand and Mann? ).
RE Pamela Grey & Roger Sowell’s exchange: Mann and the “Team” are the ones claiming that 2+2=8. We don’t have to “prove” anything. We just have to keep pushing that THEY prove where the “8” came from.
(I know. I just horribly over simplified the arguement but, hey, I’m a simple guy.)

@Roger Sowell: Do we actually need a proven, causal mechanism before it is prudent to act?

That entirely depends upon:
1. the act contemplated,
2a. the existance of other potentially causal mechanisms, and
2b. whether the act contemplated is favorably aligned with each 2a.

Your questions seems straight out of the pages of “Post-Normal Science”
From ClimateEtc May 13, comment in “The Bias of Science”The case for the existance for sources of bias is a fine argument against the use of Post-Normal Science. … Yet the thesis that bias is persuasive in today’s science seems to me to strongly argue that we need to double-down on Normal Science to first eliminate potential for bias.

I once heard Mann take a question of, if future warming would bring more La Nina-like events, as they did in the past, then doesn’t that mean models vastly overstate warming. To my surprise, Mann replied that he agreed with that, and he thinks there is a missing negative feedback.

Note that this comes from the existence of a hockey stick, which Mann says was limited in area, because the tropics exhibited LaNina like response to the warming.

“Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.”

The reason Mann achieved infamy which led to him being a prominent guest speaker at events such as this was that his 1998 paleo reconstruction of temperature obliterated the previously held climate consensus of the little ice age and medieval warm periods.

Mann’s rocketing career launched as a result of him being a science ‘maverick’ in many ways, all of them misleading, wrong, or displaying gross incompetence. He has had a stunning impact on paleo-climatology, almost single-handedly destroying its credibility in a little over a decade. Quite a feat.

What a coincidence. I saw the same Mann talk at the Univ.of Connecticut recently.
I asked him one final question before he abrubtly left.
” What do you have to say about the recent study by Zunli Lu, et. al. as well as others that support the fact that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age weren’t just some local phenomena, but were more widespread” . Mann sloughed it off by saying that he had contacted the author and he had renounced his findings. I find that hard to believe since it was a peer reviewed paper by a group of authors. (below). Just the fact that each event lasted more than a hundred years should mean that they could hardly be localized.

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.

Prior to 1962 the consensus view was that the ocean basins were stable features, and people believing in continental drift were elements of a lunatic fringe. After 1963, if a person did not believe in continental drift they were considered part of the lunatic fringe. I suppose that Mann views consensus as simply changing very quickly…but never, never the result of a Maverick or two.

The two paragraphs of the question Roger Sowell posed for Dr. Mann are contradictory to me. Either Mann’s tree ring data showed a “decline” after 1960 or the tree ring data was “cherry picked” to show an upward hockey stick shape. How can both be true? If he had tree ring data, cherry picked or otherwise, that showed a hockey stick shape when graphed, why would he need to “hide the decline”? It doesn’t make any sense to me.

I mean, either Dr. Mann produced his famous hockey stick graph using “the instrumental temperature record” because the tree ring data showed a decline after 1960, or he “cherry picked” tree ring data to produce an ascending hockey stick. Which was it? Or did he do both at different times and I’m getting them confused as one event? Can anyone explain this?

Yes, before the camera rolled, David Nazar and I talked a bit and I told him that Watts Up With That.com is an excellent source of climate science information. Who knows if he wrote it down or remembered it later. He seemed more concerned that I had no organization behind me. An army of independent skeptics seems a novel concept.

================

Roger, thank you a very well written post and for your sincere contribution with regards to “the cause”.

I especially like your statement “He seemed more concerned that I had no organization behind me. An army of independent skeptics seems a novel concept.”

An army of ones? Quite a novel concept indeed with regards to ‘climate change’. Not an independent army but an army of independents, researching, asking questions, voting, searching for the truth, etc. The truth in the hands of an army of independents is a powerful concept.

Always use your title in public: Doctor. And mention that you are chemical engineer”

Technically, a law degree is a Juris Doctor, but I can’t think of any attorney who claims to be a doctor. I have never done so.

I didn’t say my name or that I’m an attorney and engineer at the Q&A microphone, since that was the protocol at this meeting. None of the questioners did. Many other meetings or panels do require the questioners to identify themselves for the record. However, the name-tag they issued me at the Water Summit identified me as an attorney but not an engineer. Everyone I met could read that. Almost everyone asks what type of law I practice, and I tell them with a brief statement of my background in engineering.

But, the reporter, Mr. David Nazar, asked me these things so I told him.

I can understand why people are concerned about the decline in temperature shown in the tree ring record after the 1960’s but before that time tree ring data correlated with other proxy’s and even the instrumental record very well. Like Mann said, there needs to be more research done on the effects of increased CO2 and pollution on tree rings since 1960.

Are you all suggesting that tree ring data should never be used as a proxy record before 1960?

Mann even took your criticism and developed a proxy temperature record that does not include tree rings (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html). But even though Mann did that, it still needs to be said that tree ring proxy’s correlate with other proxy’s very well, and just because there is a serous anthropogenic process going on at present, which is most likely causing the tree ring proxy divergence after 1960, does not warrant the removal of all proxy tree ring data from temperature reconstructions before 1960.

“With Mann’s bogus study out of the way it is clear that – by the very definition of warming – our current warming began at the bottom [~1680] (not the “end”, which is an arbitrary and irrelevant date) of the LIA.”

Pamela Gray says:
May 19, 2012 at 11:36 am
Bill, your comment is without substance and your review of said research was not done with a very critical eye. The mechanism behind CO2 forms a much stronger case than the empty shell of solar/temperature wriggle matching. However, AGWers fail to nullify intrinsic natural variability. Both sides of the CO2/solar debate make separate but equally major failures.

And of course the Sun heats the planet directly. Whenever solar enthusiasts start their agrument with that tired verse, I cringe.

==========

If you’re using the AGW KT97 and ilk cartoon energy budget then what do you know about the Sun? Nought. It’s missing the direct heat from the Sun which actually heats up the Earth’s land and oceans, and you warmers haven’t even noticed.. “Shortwave in longwave out” is what makes me cringe.

Is Mann merely mislead? Or is he dissimulating or dishonest? I think this – together with another account for the East, as well a a prize winning Dutch science article in Natuurwetenschap (if memory serves me – it is still linked to in English at Ross MicKitrick’s web site) from 2004 or ‘5 – tells us, if we read the evidence of our own eyes clearly.

THIS IS WHAT’S TRULY DISTURBING: how does an evident prostitute gain so much power, respect, and professional influence. The needs to be a popular, American version of “The Hockey Stick Illusion,” methinks.

“…but Mann, proud Mann
Drest in a little brief authority
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep.”
Shakespeare (almost), Measure for Measure.

“Mann replied that Lindzen is a maverick, and that the consensus is what we follow in science.”

Really, Dr. Mann? Because what I thought…what I HOPED to be true…is that in science, we follow…the science. If what you say is true, then science deserves to be looked at with suspicion, because there is no more compelling evidence than that statement that what we call science now is disconnected from what we think science is.

I am so tired of this consensus thing. Consensus is not an element of the scientific method. I challenge anyone to show any textbook that says that science seeks consensus as validation of theory, or, even more importantly, that consensus is part of the scientific method.

Consensus is NOT a a scientific methodology; it is a political one. Consensus is what you do when you want to move forward, but there is not unanimity. In fact, consensus, by definition, means that there are opposing views.

Science history has demonstrated over and over again that consensus is NOT a good tool for determining the true way that our universe works.

Or, to put it another way…anyone who relies on a “consensus” is not a scientist…but a politician. Not a truthseeker, but a facilitator. Not a person whose word means truth…but a person whose word represents the seeking of money and power.

Truly…his arctic ice graphs stopped in 2007? Is there any truer indication that conveying reality is not his goal?

“… Dr. Mann refused the (PBS) interview and got angry.”
“David ended by asking why I thought Dr. Mann was so rude in his refusal to be interviewed, and I replied that I don’t know, but …”

Roger,

Thank you for attending the event.

I like your answer to David Nazar because he should have asked Michael Mann why he is so angry and rude, not you. However, I think I know why—and I assume you do, too. It’s easy to guess because AGW proponents brought up repeatedly how angry they are with the media for giving credibility to skeptics by juxtaposing their views with those of “legitimate scientists”. It became their mantra lately when asked about losing the public. It must be infuriating to them that PBS would do it, too. They are supposed to own PBS.

Step 1: Define who is a climate scientist by allowing only those in agreement with current AGW doctrine to label themselves as a climate scientist (since climate science is not an established academic discipline in itself).

Step 2: Control all scientific publication in the area of climate science, since the peers of peer review will simply be the members of the climate scientist population you’ve already defined.

Step 3: Claim a consensus among the climate scientist population (easy to do, since you’ve already defined that population).

Step 4: Dismiss any dissenters as not being recognized climate scientists.

Step 5: If any climate scientists break rank and depart from the current orthodoxy, label them as a maverick, or as being funded by big oil, or as being past their prime in the field.

I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.
****

I cringe too, Pamela. Our resident solar expert has spent a career looking for such a link & hasn’t found it. I don’t know why it’s so hard to imagine that large climate changes are internally-generated by regional solar input changes — which aren’t caused by intrinsic solar changes, but by earth’s orbital variations & ocean/atmospheric shifts — like the D/O & Heinrich events.

I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism…..
_____________________
Pamela, you forgot the Gerard Roe’s 2006 paper “In defense of Milankovitch” Luboš Motl has a good summary and pointers to the paper.

Milankovitch cycles are all about the change of solar energy as seen from earth.

…..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…

Given even the Climate Collaborators acknowledge the Milankovitch cycles, I think we can also acknowledge them.

What causes the finer adjustments in the climate? We really do not know but we do know that the water cycle, ice, ocean and clouds have a major effect. How or if the variation in the sun effects the water cycle is still in the “discussion” phase.

But you are correct we are still in the search for all the confounding factors that effect the climate so no one can really make any statements without the specter of eating crow pie later.

About the Program
Michael Mann, lead author of the paper that introduced the hockey stick graph to the global warming debate (featured in the 2001 UN report on climate change) talks about his experiences being the subject of attacks by those who disagree with his conclusions. He spoke at the Penn State Bookstore in Happy Valley, Pennsylvania.

I hope someone sees this in time to make a recording, for posted to youtube.
There are so few people in the audience for Mann’s book review, they has the appearance of being hand picked. I wonder if some one might recognize, put names to the faces.

Regarding the above discussion on solar impacts versus other impacts on the climate: I’m not a solar expert. I do look at numerous solar graphs and other data, such as this one from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, a recognized solar scientist.

The graph shows the sun’s magnetic field is clearly weaker now compared to the previous 45 years, noting that the data begins in 1966 or 67. If, and I repeat IF, Dr. Svensmark’s proposed mechanism for sunspots and cooling is correct, then the weaker solar magnetic field will produce more clouds and thus a global cooling. As I stated in my speech to the chemical engineers in April, we have a ways to go until we know. Most likely, by summer of 2014.

Of course, if Dr. K. Abdussamatov is correct, that will be too late. Crops will be failing around the world, and we have not nearly enough food supplies stored to meet the demand.

I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.

A good and valid point. However, observations throughout recent solar cycles, should produce some quantification and hopefully some corresponding theory. Until then prudence should be observed when making bold solar statements. If only CO2 advocates would follow the same prudence and wisdom, we could all board the real climate science train. GK

That speech was a lot of fun, and it was rewarding to have a few college students from California State – Long Beach in attendance. They seemed to not be aware of any of the points I made, and it came as somewhat of a surprise to them.
This is how it is done, the key to propaganda (lying) and not getting caught is not what you say, but what you do not say, and what you assure no one else is allowed to say.
He did not decline the interview because of any litagation, but because first, he might be asked some uncomfortable questions and be caught on camera trying to answer them, and because he does not wish under any circumstances to allow a skeptic to comment or even talk about any of what he says as that would violate the rule above, which is to assure that only his side is presented.
In his case, do not ascribe to incompetence what is adequately explained by malice.

>> Pamela Gray says: – “I wish some skeptics would not refer to the “most likely cause” being solar. There is as yet no mechanism. The solar influence is a wild-arse guess as much as CO2 is and does not improve the debate in the least.”

At least we agree that CO2 is a wild-arse guess. As to solar, take away the Sun and you got Uranus and Neptune’s Icy cold climates. Bring Sun back, albeit to closely, and you got Mercury and Venus’s Firey hot climates. Thus, it would seem solar influence is more than a wild-arse guess.

Piers Corbyn of Weather Action is making a profitable living predicting the weather up to a year in advance from correlations with solar activity. Whereas, Global Warmers have failed with their predictions and to even accurately tie climate to CO2. Thus, it would seem solar influence would be a better guess than CO2.

Granted the above is not scientific, but then neither has the work of numerous GW alarmists. ;)

It seems that Mann is now getting the treatment at public events that have plagued Gore (I recall his book signing event where he was “intruded upon” by a guy with a microphone, also the event where he got frustrated with skeptical questions and was heard swearing into a mike that he thought was turned off. Haven’t heard much of Gore recently.

… If, and I repeat IF, Dr. Svensmark’s proposed mechanism for sunspots and cooling is correct, then the weaker solar magnetic field will produce more clouds and thus a global cooling. As I stated in my speech to the chemical engineers in April, we have a ways to go until we know. Most likely, by summer of 2014.

Of course, if Dr. K. Abdussamatov is correct, that will be too late. Crops will be failing around the world, and we have not nearly enough food supplies stored to meet the demand.

I will be happy to be wrong on this one. Very happy.
____________________________________
You and me both. But just in case I moved south and bought a farm. I am now switching to long haired sheep and goats. I am also building a green house.

Mid North Carolina is still looking at a May with a max temp of 91F for one day with the rest in the seventies and only ten days above eighty (five of those being from the current forecast). Compare that to May of 2004, two years after peak of cycle 23 when the solar influence should be at the maximum. There were 17 days of max temperatures above ninety and two days of temperatures of 98F. The local weather points to cooling.

At least we agree that CO2 is a wild-arse guess. As to solar, take away the Sun and you got Uranus and Neptune’s Icy cold climates. Bring Sun back, albeit to closely, and you got Mercury and Venus’s Firey hot climates. Thus, it would seem solar influence is more than a wild-arse guess.
****

It’s all about the variability of overall solar input, not the obvious fact that the sun heats the earth (duh). The solar “cycles” are cycles of magnetic activity. How does magnetic activity affect weather, which is a water-vapor-driven heat engine? The slight TSI variability is well documented, and it cycles back & forth, so no net affect over ~11 yrs. Even if the sun went to a minimum Maunder state, the temp effect would be ~.1C.

I also agree with Pamela @ 8:44. Obviously climate change has many causes of which the sun is likely one them, as can be shown by the wealth of literature that we have seen published in the last three years and assembled in a small on-line library by the Club du Soleil (a bunch of scientists, mainly of Dutch origin, who share literature that deals with the possible link between sun and climate). Worth visiting: http://chrono.qub.ac.uk/blaauw/cds.html

@Roger Sowell 7:13 am Of course, if Dr. K. Abdussamatov is correct, that will be too late. Crops will be failing around the world, and we have not nearly enough food supplies stored to meet the demand.

Ah. If the act you contemplate (re Rasey 2:32) is to take a lesson from Joseph and store grain for future lean years, then that act would seem prudent regardless of the direction climate changes in the next decade. Repealing mandated amounts of grain ethanol to be blended with gasoline would seem to be prudent for the same reason.

m.whittemore@hotmail.com says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:30 pm
… does not warrant the removal of all proxy tree ring data from temperature reconstructions before 1960.
============
The problem is selective removal of proxy tree ring data, both before and after 1960. Any statistician worth their paycheck can tell you why this is not valid mathematically.

Dendro-Thermology is built on the premise that you can improve the accuracy of trees as a predictive tool by excluding those trees that do not correlate well with modern global temperature averages.

Using that same argument, we could then eliminate all but 1 tree. Find the one tree in the world that best matches the global average temperature over the past 100 years and use that tree as a proxy for the past 1000 years.

For example: Let us construct a similar model say using US GDP over the past 100 years. We know that if we add up the GDP for all 50 states it will correlate perfectly with US GDP. Now just look at the past 10 years, and select only those states that for the past 10 years have matched the US GDP.

Dendro-Thermology would have us believe that using only those that matched for the past 10 years states, we could get a better prediction of past GDP for 100 years than if we use all 50 states. However, that is wrong. Just because an individual state has matched the average over the past 10 years doesn’t mean it will match the average over the past 100 years, even though there is a cause and effect relationship between national and state GDP.

This is the fallacy of selecting only trees that match the present and using them to predict the past. It doesn’t work mathematically. It sounds logical, but it is nonsense. It may be argued that you are eliminating noise, but you aren’t. You are eliminating information, leading to a false positive. You statistically over-estimate the confidence in your result.

Yes, I make this point in my speech. We have so little food grains stored that just one crop failure globally will result in massive starvation. We also have no time (as Joseph did) to grow extra crops and store them.

My grandmother understood and preached us to enjoy warm weather, but always be prepared for cold weather.

She kept a store of discarded tires to act as heat sources for tomato plants. She kept a store of cold spring variety and warm spring variety seeds. She built window sized glassed movable boxes (made out of discarded windows and old barn lumber) to act as impromtu greenhouses. The veggies she grew varied depending on the onset and conditions of the spring she was experiencing. Top layer soil temperature compared to shovel depth soil temperature was one of her measures, as was the appearance, number, and condition of night crawlers. She had a ready made system of germinating seeds indoors when temperatures were too cold to plant directly into the soil. By pre-germinating seeds, she could still have warm-weather plants when spring temps was too cold to germinate those seeds in soil. The wisdom she had regarding working with growing conditions made me believe she could grow lettuce at the North Pole.

ferd berple says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 20, 2012 at 9:45 am
Dendro-Thermology is built on the premise that you can improve the accuracy of trees as a predictive tool by excluding those trees that do not correlate well with modern global temperature averages.
================
For example, looking at US data, I see that the states of LA, VA and SC exactly matched average US GDP last year at 2.6% change. Using the “climate science” logic of tree ring proxies, these three states should therefore provide a better prediction of past US GDP growth than if we were to use data from all 50 states.

Clearly there is a cause and effect relationship between the GDP of LA, VA and SC and the US national average. So if climate science is correct, then by eliminating those states that do not track well with current GDP we should get a better prediction of past GDP than if we were to include data from all 50 states.

In reality we do not. Just because LA, VA and SC match the current GDP doesn’t mean they will match over the long term. You get a much more accurate long term result by including all 50 states. This is the mathematical fallacy of tree ring science. It is based on faulty mathematics. It sounds logical but it isn’t.

Climate science based on selective use of tree ring proxies is no more valid than counting the lumps on someone’s head to predict intelligence. The problem mathematically is that you are comparing the individual to the average, and from that concluding that the individual predicts the average better than the group. It is nonsense.

For example. Take a group of 100 people and computer their growth in average income over the past 20 years. Now take the 5 individuals that for the past 2 years best match the average. Tree ring science would have us believe that these 5 individuals provide a better prediction for past incomes than if we took all 100 individuals. After all it is logical. The 5 better match current averages, so they should better match historical averages as well.

What this really speaks to is the quality of education, that so many would be duped into believing such an obvious error in logic.

Pamela Gray says:
May 20, 2012 at 9:48 am
No, the Sun is not likely one of them. So far, no measures of solar output variations can be used to describe solar influence as being “likely”.
=========
This is in large part due to the focus on TSI to describe the Sun’s effect on climate. Since the TSI does vary much, the sun cannot play much of a role in climate.

Any amateur radio (Ham) operator can tell you that the is a HUGE change in radio propagation within the solar cycle and from one cycle to the next. Any by HUGE I mean HUGE. This is a direct measure of the sun’s effect on the earth’s atmosphere. Completely unpredicted by the change in TSI.

Clearly there is something going on within the sun from one solar cycle to the next that has a huge effect on the earth’s atmosphere that is not predicted by the TSI. To suggest this has no effect on climate is illogical. If the sun has only limited effect on climate, then why does it have such a profound effect on atmospheric ionization levels?

Having said that, I do agree with Pamela that we should not rule out any causes simply because the sun might look like a good explanation. That is the mistake that was made with CO2.

Michael Whittemore says:
May 20, 2012 at 10:30 am
At the end of the day, Mann took all the criticism and created a temperature reconstruction without tree ring proxy’s (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html).
==========
Any competent mathematician that is free to chose which proxies to include and which methodology to employ can create anything they want to show. Any time you allow the researcher any sort of a choice you introduce the unconscious bias of the researcher into the result, which leads to an under-estimate of the error in the results.

Thus the need for double-blind controls. Thus the need for archiving and independent confirmation by a hostile researcher. Not only are these not present in much of climate science, as we see from the climategate emails there is an active program to prevent disclose of contrary results and data.

The important point is not what you can show with the data, but whether the data can also show a contrary result with a different methodology. If it can, then the result is likely not robust. This is the control that is missing from climate science, which has lead to an explosion of false positives. An overconfidence in the significance of the result.

The problem is that other researchers then build on this shaky foundation, and generations of pseudo science results. Billions of dollars that could have been spent productively end up wasted, and the economy goes into the toilet with massive debt the result.

China and India boom as consumers pay the cost of moving factories and jobs offshore to save the planet from CO2, while in the end there is no reduction in CO2 whatsoever. All that has happened is that consumers have picked up the tab to move the factories, rather than the manufacturers themselves. The jobs have left, In its place are massive debts owed to China, and the CO2 has returned carried on the wind.

Michael Whittemore says:
May 20, 2012 at 10:30 am
Also you don’t reduce the number of tree ring proxy’s you use before 1960′s, you try and increase them, so that you can average out any of the ones that might not be a good proxy record.
==========
apparently climate science hasn’t gotten your memo:http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full
“Of the 1,209 proxy records in the full dataset, 484 (40%) pass the temperature-screening process over the full (1850–1995) calibration interval (Fig. 1; see also SI Text and Table S1).”

Deno-thermology continues to remain a pseudo science. The temperature-screening process is statistically invalid. It is cherry picking which falsely increases the confidence interval while reducing the accuracy. It is garbage science based of false logic.

Michael Whittemore says:
May 20, 2012 at 10:30 am
Also you don’t reduce the number of tree ring proxy’s you use before 1960′s, you try and increase them, so that you can average out any of the ones that might not be a good proxy record.
=============
If increasing the tree’s before 1960 averages out those that might not be a good proxy record, then the same logic must apply for those trees after 1960. You would want to increase the number of tree ring proxy’s you use after 1960 for the very same reason you use those before 1960, to average out any ones that might not be a good proxy.

The simple fact is that there is no valid reason to exclude tree’s post 1960, except that is the exact same time that temperatures started to increase. It is this period, post 1960’s that the IPCC says cannot be explained by anything other than CO2. At the exact point at which there is a problem in explaining the temperature record, this is the exact same point where climate science has cannot explain the divergence problem.

Coincidence? Not likely. It simply means that something happened around the 1960’s that climate science hasn’t considered.

“and that the consensus is what we follow in science. ” — I wish someone would ask Mann exactly how this consensus was achieved so quickly. Einstein had to wait longer to achieve consensus on Special Relativity, which is far less complicated than climate and is still being tested. Okay, Mann, you have consensus. Tell us how it was achieved. I’m thinking it was in some smoke-filled room at the UN and you’re nothing more than a useful idiot. The least you can do is show us the minutes of the alleged “debate” that’s now officially over.

Thank you to all who wrote comments above, for the kind words and support. Actually, the Water Summit was quite interesting, and I had fun watching and listening to Dr. Mann. Asking the question was also great fun, and hearing him duck and dodge in his answer.

I highly recommend the experience, not only for Dr. Mann, but for any of “The Team” scientists, wherever they speak in public. Any one of us in the “army of independent skeptics” can do this. I just happened to be available that day at Disneyland.

If the event’s protocol requires us to identify ourselves before asking the question, how cool would it be to say your name, then “I’m in the army of independent skeptics.”

Climate ‘Wars’ is not about the irony of a ‘Peace’ Prize it is about an Ostrich:

“When an ostrich buries its head in the sand as danger approaches, it very likely takes the happiest course. It hides the danger, and then calmly says there is no danger; and, if it feels perfectly sure there is none, why should it raise its head to see?”

CAGW is not about science but the will of the state and institutions of climate science:

“Let the will of the state act, then, instead of that of the individual. Let an institution be created which shall have for its object to keep correct doctrines before the attention of the people, to reiterate them perpetually, and to teach them to the young; having at the same time power to prevent contrary doctrines from being taught, advocated, or expressed.

“Let all possible causes of a change of mind be removed from men’s apprehensions. Let them be kept ignorant, lest they should learn of some reason to think otherwise than they do. Let their passions be enlisted, so that they may regard private and unusual opinions with hatred and horror.

“Then, let all men who reject the established belief be terrified into silence. Let the people turn out and tar-and-feather such men, or let inquisitions be made into the manner of thinking of suspected persons, and, when they are found guilty of forbidden beliefs, let them be subjected to some signal punishment.

“When complete agreement could not otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country.

“If the power to do this be wanting, let a list of opinions be drawn up, to which no man of the least independence of thought can assent, and let the faithful be required to accept all these propositions, in order to segregate them as radically as possible from the influence of the rest of the world.”

Apocalyptic climate science as it is currently practiced is simply belief:

“The force of habit will sometimes cause a man to hold on to old beliefs, after he is in a condition to see that they have no sound basis. But reflection upon the state of the case will overcome these habits, and he ought to allow reflection its full weight. People sometimes shrink from doing this, having an idea that beliefs are wholesome which they cannot help feeling rest on nothing.”

A science book should essentially be about integrity of belief:

“But, above all, let it be considered that what is more wholesome than any particular belief is integrity of belief, and that to avoid looking into the support of any belief from a fear that it may turn out rotten is quite as immoral as it is disadvantageous.

The person who confesses that there is such a thing as truth, which is distinguished from falsehood……. and then, though convinced of this, dares not know the truth and seeks to avoid it, is in a sorry state of mind indeed.”

Michael Whittemore says – “The 2003 paper by Professor McKitrick and Steve McIntyre has not been accepted by the scientific community, … ” “National Center for Atmospheric Research confirmed the principal results …” “so you have not “fixed” my statement”

Your in serious Denial!

#1 Your so called “scientific community” is anything but. We have seen the trail of emails that show what kind of group of people Global Warming Alarmists really are. “Hide the Decline!” Just Gleick it! Mann hiding his H.S. work.
#2 Stating NCAR confirmed the principal results is about as credible as having the IPCC do a movie review on Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.
#3 The “annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined”. How convenient that narrow window, despite Mann’s Hockeysticking out into the future. Never mind the past that wouldn’t fit…
#4 But most importantly, Mother Nature has shown Mann’s up schtick to be WRONG!

When are the supporters and backers of Mann, Hansen, Gore, Jones, going to get it through their heads the aforementioned lost all credibility when they colluded with each other to cover up scientific results, manipulated data, and hid information that ran counter to their Global Warming Alarm-ism? When are the supporters and backers of AGW going to realize that no papers, even Peered-reviewed papers coming out of the AGW encampment are going to carry any weight, given the past unethical and unscientific behaviors of AGW alarmists?

Thus one again: “but before that time Mannipulated tree ring data semi correlated with some cherry picked proxy’s and even the biased instrumental records, well sort of.”

PS: The basis of AGW, that man made CO2 is causing Global Warming is Unscientific, knowing that man made CO2 contributes less than 0.12% as Greenhouse gas.

Jim Macdonald says:
May 19, 2012 at 3:58 pm
What a coincidence. I saw the same Mann talk at the Univ.of Connecticut recently.
I asked him one final question before he abrubtly left.
” What do you have to say about the recent study by Zunli Lu, et. al. as well as others that support the fact that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age weren’t just some local phenomena, but were more widespread” . Mann sloughed it off by saying that he had contacted the author and he had renounced his findings. I find that hard to believe since it was a peer reviewed paper by a group of authors. (below). Just the fact that each event lasted more than a hundred years should mean that they could hardly be localized.

Someone keeps repeating that Mann has made Hockey Sticks without Yamal 06. I don’t know how much these Hockey Stick “reconstructions” are costing the tax payers but I can contruct one real cheap. Just duct tape a yard stick to a boomerang!
(Of course, if someone examines it closely that method may come back to haunt me ….)

“MBH98-99 apparently did substitute instrumental data after 1980 to compute its smoothed version of the HS up to 1980 (“Mike’s Nature Trick”), but in the MBH papers the effect of that was fairly subtle. It was Jones’ later use of the same trick in the WMO graph that gave a completely misleading impression.

So in fact Mann was correct to say that your question contained false information, since you were accusing him of someone else’s deception rather than his own.”

Really? It was not Mann’s deception but that of Phil Jones at a later date?

OK. I will buy that if you explain why it was “Mike’s Nature Trick” and not ‘Phil’s Nature trick’.

Richard

PS I have tried to use “blockquote” and “bold”. I apologise if this has gone wrong in any way.

….When are the supporters and backers of Mann, Hansen, Gore, Jones, going to get it through their heads the aforementioned lost all credibility….
____________________________
When the insiders finish shearing the sheep. It should be any day now. Green Energy has been hyped to the max and is starting to fray around the edges with Germany and Spain backing off supplying Tax dollars. The idea is to scam the tax payers then hype the stock to sky high prices just before bailing and leaving the gullible holding a bankrupt company worth nothing while the insiders make out like Robber Barons. see my comment here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/20/open-thread-weekend-11/#comment-990364

I really doubt they can continue the Con much longer but the average humans may be gullible enough to allow the scam to continue awhile longer.